Omar Khadr to be keynote speaker at Dalhousie University...

[KeepItRealist]

Its not my opinion, its UN resolution 2427

Hahahahahah. Yeah that resolution is really legally binding and totally applies to Khadr regardless.

There was not and remains no international law that gives terrorists any rights, regardless of age or nationality.

 

[PhitePhan]

Terrorists are not soldiers.... Picking up a gun under 18 or 16 or whatever doesn't make you a soldier. Serving in a recognized military does.

Bro, the founding fathers were terrorists under your definition.

 

[Sketch]

How brave and progressive.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Bro, the founding fathers were terrorists under your definition.

Maybe under the terms of the Geneva Conventions they would have been, same with about any revolutionary movement in history, but it's irrelevant in 2020. Who is a lawful combatant and enjoys legal protections is clearly defined. Anything else is at the discretion of each nation.

 

[PhitePhan]

Maybe under the terms of the Geneva Conventions they would have been, same with about any revolutionary movement in history, but it's irrelevant in 2020. Who is a lawful combatant and enjoys legal protections is clearly defined. Anything else is at the discretion of each nation.

Why is it irrelevant in 2020? Seems to me like big government and globalist entities created the rules of engagement in a self serving manner... convenient that they find themselves the ones only legally allowed to fight, don't ya think? Question, where do US militias fall within this legal framework?

That being said, reading a little about this guy shows that he was brought up in a pretty militant fashion and I'd be veery cautious of integrating him back in to society... also not a big fan of him getting paid either.

 

[Wet Blanket]

Good on them. He was innocent and tortured by US army barbarians who didn't have anything on him.

This is true.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Why is it irrelevant in 2020? Seems to me like big government and globalist entities created the rules of engagement in a self serving manner... convenient that they find themselves the ones only legally allowed to fight, don't ya think? Question, where do malicias fall within this legal framework?

That being said, reading a little about this guy shows that he was brought up in a pretty militant fashion and I'd be veery cautious of integrating him back in to society... also not a big fan of him getting paid either.

Again, what defines a militia would be at the discretion of the individual nations themselves. Obviously there is no international law to apply to every nation in that regard. And their treatment would also be defined by national laws, not the Geneva Conventions.

What is the issue is the idea that the US violated Khadr's rights or that he was a child soldier. He was not a soldier under any description in the US. Terrorists are not covered by any international agreement. It's impossible for the US to violate the rights of a citizen of another country engaging in acts of terror who has no rights under US law or any international agreement the US is part of. It was nothing but activist judges who gave him money. Like the activist judges who ignored state law in Virginia to uphold an illegal emergency order recently.

 

[Islam Imamate]

And legally they would have no protection. A child soldier is someone who meets the requirements of actually being a soldier. The people who call young members of terror groups in Africa would also apply this to any terrorist under 18. Legally, it doesn't hold water.

But you're just wrong though. Here's the definition of a child soldier according to UNICEF

any person below 18 years of age who is or who has been recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, messengers, spies or for sexual purposes. It does not only refer to a child who is taking or has taken a direct part in hostilities

You can ignore that as the UN doesn't really have power over the US, such institutions only exist to punish weak nations and not the strong ones that prop them up, but by any reasonable definition Khadr was a child soldier. Its not like he shot up a random mall, he was in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban who were the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

That said that shouldn't mean he should be speaking at a university. Its honestly a terrible look regardless of whatever struggles Khadr had imposed upon him by his father.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

He seems like a decent guy to me. His dumbass dad dragged him to Afghanistan and he chucked a nade at some soldiers after they laid siege to the house he was in and killed everyone he was with. That just isn’t especially damning to me.

Chuds act like like he’s Bin Laden or something.

 

[Happy Man]

Strange how we have international movements to help child soldiers in Africa but condem former Islamic child soldiers.

and if a kid wears a MAGA hat he is blacklisted for LIFE.

freaking leftists are a disease

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

The excuse I keep hearing is that he was a "child soldier" and this is the topic. Except he wasn't a child soldier. He was a terrorist. Terrorists are not soldiers. They don't meet the requirements and don't enjoy the legal protections. Something his "fans" simply can't get through their heads.

Lol you glossed over the salient part , he was a child .

 

[KeepItRealist]

But you're just wrong though. Here's the definition of a child soldier according to UNICEF

You can ignore that as the UN doesn't really have power over the US, such institutions only exist to punish weak nations and not the strong ones that prop them up, but by any reasonable definition Khadr was a child soldier. Its not like he shot up a random mall, he was in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban who were the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

That said that shouldn't mean he should be speaking at a university. Its honestly a terrible look regardless of whatever struggles Khadr had imposed upon him by his father.

Yes. The UN and a list of other organizations can define anything they want. I am talking about recognized international agreements the US is part of like the Geneva Conventions.

In terms of the US, terrorists have no rights, regardless of age. And are part of no agreement that defines Omar Khadr as a child soldier. There is no recognized law the US broke in the treatment or Khadr or anyone else. That's nothing but fantasy. The US could have actually tortured Khadr and then executed him and there is no law that would have been broken. He is alive entirely due to US largesse while his supporters call the US barbarians.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Lol you glossed over the salient part , he was a child .

If a 15-year old school shooter or rapist is a child. If I'm not mistaken, the British Army enlisted 15-year olds entirely very recently. Perhaps they still do.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

and if a kid wears a MAGA hat he is blacklisted for LIFE.

freaking leftists are a disease

What in the flying fuch does this ( false hood )have to with anything ?

 

[PhitePhan]

Again, what defines a militia would be at the discretion of the individual nations themselves. Obviously there is no international law to apply to every nation in that regard. And their treatment would also be defined by national laws, not the Geneva Conventions.

What is the issue is the idea that the US violated Khadr's rights or that he was a child soldier. He was not a soldier under any description in the US. Terrorists are not covered by any international agreement. It's impossible for the US to violate the rights of a citizen of another country engaging in acts of terror who has no rights under US law or any international agreement the US is part of. It was nothing but activist judges who gave him money. Like the activist judges who ignored state law in Virginia to uphold an illegal emergency order recently.

Fair enough.... I guess my problem is that the US is in another country killing people and calling the ones fighting back "terrorists." They then use that definition, which seems very self serving, to legally and morally shield themselves from culpability. Something just seems wrong about that.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

He seems like a decent guy to me. His dumbass dad dragged him to Afghanistan and he chucked a nade at some soldiers after they laid siege to the house he was in and killed everyone he was with. That just isn’t especially damning to me.

Chuds act like like he’s Bin Laden or something.

This !

Look at what he has done since he got out , maybe judge him on that .

 

[Happy Man]

What in the flying fuch does this ( false hood )have to with anything ?

the left forgives a jihadist terrorist who joined a murder cult bc he was younger at the time.

the left WILL NOT forgive a kid of similar age for wearing a MAGA hat.

leftist politics are a mental disease

 

[KeepItRealist]

This !

Look at what he has done since he got out , maybe judge him on that .

He's from Canada's first family of terror? What's he done since then? Sued to get paid $10.5M for getting captured after killing a US. Accepted adulation from other Islamists and radical leftists that support groups that his culture would murder.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Fair enough.... I guess my problem is that the US is in another country killing people and calling the ones fighting back "terrorists." They then use that definition, which seems very self serving, to legally and morally shield themselves from culpability. Something just seems wrong about that.

Sorry but that logic is a level above what that cretin will be able to comprehend.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

the left forgives a jihadist terrorist who joined a murder cult bc he was younger at the time.

the left WILL NOT forgive a kid of similar age for wearing a MAGA hat.

leftist politics are a mental disease

You sir are deranged .